Re: [PATCH 07/41] cpuset: Set up interface for nohz flag

[Christoph Lameter]

On Tue, 8 May 2012, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > For some reason this seems to work here. What is broken with isolcpus?
>
> It mostly still works I think, but iirc there were a few places that
> ignored the cpuisol mask.

Yes there is still superfluous stuff going on on isolated processors.

> But really the moment we get proper means of flushing cpu state
> (currently achievable by unplug-replug) isolcpu gets depricated and
> eventually removed.

Not sure what that means and how that is relevant. Scheduler?

> cpusets can do what isolcpu can and more (provided this flush thing).

cpusets is a pretty heavy handed thing and causes inefficiencies in the
allocators if compiled into the kernel because checks will have to be done
in hot allocation paths.

> > > Furthermore there is no other partitioning scheme, cpusets is it.
> >
> > One can partition the system anyway one wants by setting cpu affinities
> > and memory policies etc. No need for cpusets/cgroups.
>
> Not so, the load-balancer will still try to move the tasks and
> subsequently fail. Partitioning means it won't even try to move tasks
> across the partition boundary.

Ok so the scheduler is inefficient on this. Maybe that can be improved?

Setting affinities should not cause overhead in the scheduler.

> By proper partitioning you can split load balance domains (or completely
> disable the load-balancer by giving it a single cpu domain).

I thought that was the point of isolcpus?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/